This article examines the international legitimacy of unilateral dam development in an international watercourse from the perspective of international water law. Drawing upon technical analysis over the Harirud River Basin, the article discusses probable negative impacts of unilateral dam development in Afghanistan on downstream Iran and Turkmenistan. Competing claims are analyzed to assess emerging transboundary damage under customary international water law. Applying these insights to the case study, this article explores how legal norms and principles can contribute to transboundary water cooperation. It investigates how equitable and reasonable utilization, as required by the United Nations Watercourse Convention, could be reached and whether current activities are in conformity with international norms. Based on this analysis and in the light of international customary law, the article questions the compatibility of unilateral control and capture of water resources in Afghanistan, particularly through the Salma Dam, with ‘equitable and reasonable utilization’ and ‘no significant harm’ rules. The article also argues that building the Salma Dam results in significant transboundary harm to downstream states. Hence, such harm could be considered as significant transboundary damage. Conclusions point to an understanding of water law as a form of institutional guidance in order to provide a transparent setting for transboundary water cooperation among riparian states.

This paper explores the geopolitical overlay that is shaping dynamic hydropolitical interactions of the Harirud River Basin, which is a basin that spans Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan. This paper argues that the control and capture of water resources are not solely for economic development but rather for geopolitical reasons that serve the security interests of the actors involved, particularly outside-basin powers like the US and India. The Afghan Government similarly views dams as symbols of nation-building and a way of staying in power. In the absence of a lasting trilateral agreement, the existing nature of the geopolitical dynamics of the basin has led upstream Afghanistan and downstream Iran and Turkmenistan to unilaterally establish their rights to control the "rules of the game". This paper suggests that sustainable solutions will not be reached unless the geopolitical nature of the basin and outside interventions can center on a normative understanding of the regional interests, identities, and commonalities of all the riparian states.

No abstract

As is the case elsewhere in the world, water governance in Ethiopia is a by-product of a complex set of various global and local socio-political, economic, and ecological discourses and narratives. However, the many competitive and often conflicting discourses on shaping water governance in the Ethiopian Central Rift Valley (CRV) have not been examined and chronicled. This paper investigates the different discourses, narratives, and debates of water governance and their implications for satisfying the growing demand for water. The study was grounded in political economy and political ecology theoretical frameworks. Data were collected through literature surveys and intensive fieldwork, and were analyzed following a discourse analysis and using narrative analysis techniques. The study found that the dominant competing discourses that have greatly influenced water governance in the CRV focus on decentralization, water-centered development, marketization, land/water degradation, climate change, water scarcity, and weak water governance. We suggest that the analysis and documentation of the diverse narratives and discourses from multiple perspectives could help to unravel the complex nature of water governance in the CRV and lay the foundation for attempts to implement sustainable water resource management in the region.

Please see attached files for oral presentation.